H.R.17 - Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2009

To protect the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and to provide for the enforcement of such right. view all titles (2)

All Bill Titles

  • Short: Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2009 as introduced.
  • Official: To protect the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and to provide for the enforcement of such right. as introduced.

This Bill currently has no wiki content. If you would like to create a wiki entry for this bill, please Login, and then select the wiki tab to create it.

Comments Feed

Displaying 1-30 of 281 total comments.

boomer47 10/23/2010 8:38pm

I have problems with this because it seems to narrow our second ammendment RIGHT. WE currently have a second ammendment right to bear arms for any purpose. This seems to remove from the definition the right to protect ourselves from an over zealous government which a reading of Federalist 46 makes abundantly clear we have the right to do. Personally… I don’t like it. It seems to me if we allow this to pass we are supporting allowing congress to restrict what is already a RIGHT and thus sliding further into tyranny. We have a RIGHT to bear arms it needs no definition.

crackpot 09/21/2010 1:32pm
in reply to silverfang77 May 10, 2010 6:24am

I think most of them haven’t read any of the Constitution.

ianiam 08/23/2010 11:31am

Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion… in private self-defense.
John Adams

Do we really need laws to clarify? How about justices to uphold the constitution?

pramsey 08/06/2010 3:55am
in reply to JustinAPetersWV Aug 05, 2010 11:53am

Well said JustinAPetersWV!

JustinAPetersWV 08/05/2010 12:00pm
in reply to JustinAPetersWV Aug 05, 2010 11:53am

And to comment on those who claim that a bill like this isn’t necessary because the 2nd Amendment secures this right…

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

While I would agree that “shall not be infringed” clearly means that the government ought not to interfere with such a right, I do not see where it explains how this right can be exercised. To “keep and bear arms” means to me that you can have them and carry them, not that you can use them as you see fit. Legislation must make clear what is and what is not the legal use of firearms.

JustinAPetersWV 08/05/2010 11:53am

Two throw in my two cents… Many states, including my home state, West Virginia, have enacted what is commonly known as the “Castle Doctrine”. While the specifics vary from state-to-state, the basic idea is that you are legally protected should you use lethal force to protect yourself or others while you are at home.

In West Virginia, the law (ยง55-7-22) states that “A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder or attacker.”

It also continues to claim that “A person … who is attacked in any place he or she has a legal right to be … may use reasonable and proportionate force against an intruder or attacker … without a duty to retreat if the person reasonably believes that he or she or another is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm…”

I believe that a federal law identical to West Virginia’s “Castle Doctrine” is necessary to insure each person’s right to defend themselves and others.

Aviator1812 08/03/2010 12:33pm

We cannot rely on the government for protection.. they already failed with 9/11 so I approve of this bill. The people need the right to protect themselves and families. Congress PASS THIS BILL. Let me protect my mother and young.

pramsey 07/23/2010 9:26am
in reply to bonniebluepatriot Jul 23, 2010 8:42am

AMEN bonniebluepatriot

bonniebluepatriot 07/23/2010 8:45am
in reply to bonniebluepatriot Jul 23, 2010 4:44am

Something to think about . . . .
a criminal doesn’t lose his citizenship when he commits a crime. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that only law abiding citizens can keep and bear arms. When the authors of the 2nd Amendment participated in the Declaration of Independence, they were criminals in the eyes of their government. In fact, they were treasonous criminals. It would make no sense to read the 2nd Amendment as pertaining only to those people the government defines as law abiding. All the government has to do then, to infringe on a citizens right to keep and bear arms, is to change a definition in a law to define “the people” as criminals and therefore they would be ineligible to keep and bear arms.

Who defines “criminal”? Government. Who, by proposing and enacting laws that infringe on citizens rights to keep and bear arms, ends up disarming citizens? Government. It doesn’t take a genius to see a coorelation.

bonniebluepatriot 07/23/2010 8:42am
in reply to pramsey Jul 23, 2010 7:55am

Whether there are “accidental deaths” related to firearms has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. How many accidental deaths are year are related to bikes, motorcycles, cars, etc. and there aren’t attempts to ban their use. It’s a ridiculous argument that just attempts to divert attention from the real issue.

I agree with you that the main cause of these accidents is due to the lack of knowledge and exposure kids have to firearms today. Used to be firearms were kept in the open, they weren’t a novelty item hidden away. Kids were taught how to use them and how NOT to use them from young ages. Now, they are hidden away and even talking about guns with kids is taboo according to the PC crowd – except to say never use them, never touch them, if you even see one laying around rund in the opposite direction.

The current PC attitude about guns and how access for kids should be severely limited is the caues of theses accidents – it is not the cure.

pramsey 07/23/2010 7:55am
in reply to ccsilveus Nov 02, 2009 11:46am

You’re absolutely correct however; those “accidental deaths” are caused by inappropriate storage and insufficient firearms education. My father really was a Life NRA member, NRA firearms instructor, and WWII veteran. I slept with hunting rifles, shotguns and a few handguns in my bedroom. I can’t remember any “accidental” deaths related to firearms in my home town between the years of my first memories (born 1959) and the time I joined the Navy in 1977. And I don’t know of any since either. You may be an NRA member, but it is likely in name only. You may carry a membership card, but it’s likely only so you can say you are an NRA member, otherwise you would not spout your retoric and appear to have some kind of knowledge of what you are talking about.

bonniebluepatriot 07/23/2010 4:44am

The 2nd Amendment states, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” According to the dictionary, infringe is synonomous with “encroach, intrude on, interfere with, impinge on, trespass, invade, overstep.” ANY law that attempts in any way to infringe (ie: interfere with) the people’s right to keep and bear arms is unConstitutional. ANY LAW that in any way impacts the people’s right to keep and bear arms is unConstitutional. So, unless a law is written that EXPANDS the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, it violates the Constitution. This is just another in a long line of laws that is attempting to infringe.

When a law defines WHO can obtain a firearm, it infringes on our rights. When a law attempt to define the manner in which we can use our firearms it infringes on our rights. When a law defines arms it infringes on our rights.

I oppose this legislation, not because I don’t support the 2nd Amendment, but because I do support it.

italianjerzguy84 07/22/2010 6:39am
in reply to apache01 Jul 28, 2009 8:45am

Also, HR47 is not this bill. That was a previous session of congress and has not been voted on. If this one is not considered before november, the same will probably happen.

italianjerzguy84 07/22/2010 6:37am
in reply to apache01 Jul 28, 2009 8:45am

Please show me what other things democrats have attached to this. I would be interested to see what you are talking about. This is a common trick among politicians.

italianjerzguy84 07/22/2010 6:20am
in reply to LeMat Oct 23, 2009 10:22am

It doesn’t contradict the constitution it supports it. I think it will give us more rights then what we have now. I think this is a common sense solution to slowly working in more rights for us, and taking back our country.

dankennedy73 06/22/2010 7:38am

I could really support this bill if the 29 paragraph were rewritten just a little. People should not be prosecuted for defense of self, family, and home/property but at the same time it must be clear that there remains a reasonoble allowance for authorities to investigate possible abuses of this right. And anyone with a good imagination can see how this law could be abused.

LobaAzul 06/09/2010 9:05am

This act is not necessary in a legal sense and in fact, the government has no standing on the issue due to their lack of authority under the Constitition but the resolution serves a purpose here where we can register our opinions.

Aviator1812 05/11/2010 12:07pm
in reply to Anonymous Feb 21, 2010 12:58pm

I admire your powers of observation.. Don’t worry yourself.. We the people are greater than ever.. we cannot doubt ourselves over little people that are nothing compared to the people. I will not stand for tryanny. I agree with abolishing the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA or needs to be regulated by the people.

Aviator1812 05/11/2010 11:59am

It’s imperative that this bill gets through. I support it, my question is why are they trying to take away our second ammendment? The problem with guns is the fact the government is useless to regulate guns. Let the states decide own their own how to regulate them laws. The “People” have the right to bear arms and shall not be infringed. Long live the People of this country. God Bless all. Peace

silverfang77 05/10/2010 6:24am
in reply to wera308 Apr 02, 2009 1:05pm

It’s needed because obviously, some people in congress can’t read the Second Amendment.

ak_mcdermotts 04/29/2010 11:41pm

I agree with many of the comments listed here; why is this even necessary when the constitution already guarantees this right? It is unnecessary legislation that will intrude in yet another facet of our lives. I do not need permission to carry or protect my family, as it is an individual right guaranteed to me (and you) through the second amendment.

ndavis 04/28/2010 5:22am
Link Reply
+ -1

As I agree that we should all have the right to own and use a firearm… this is not a Federal Issue… it should be left up to the individual States.

polcat 04/12/2010 9:14am

I am always weary of a Federal bill that establishes rights already afforded in our Constitution. The broader Second Amendment right is greater protection to citizenry than a detailed bill that can lead to legal precedent that then abridges the broader granted rights that our forefathers had the wisdom to impart. I am not for any bill that re-defines the Constitutional rights we are already accorded and legally protected by, as well as un-necessary legislation that clearly seeks to sway election votes.

ryandsmith 03/05/2010 7:12am

It is shame that such a bill even has to be put forth in Congress. Read the constitution and the issue of bearing arms will be settled. Sadly, there are those in the government who have a big problem with citizens having firearms.

Anonymous 02/21/2010 12:58pm


Anonymous 02/16/2010 5:07am


dtkr 02/15/2010 1:20pm

This is more bs, I already have this “RIGHT”. More gov’t trying to ALLOW me the privledge of defending my LIFE,LIBERTY and PROPERTY already guaranteed by my creator God Almighty!!!

Anonymous 02/06/2010 4:16am


Anonymous 02/04/2010 8:51am


Anonymous 01/24/2010 10:37am


Vote on This Bill

96% Users Support Bill

6085 in favor / 265 opposed

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments